| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 02.01.16 04:13l 1251 Lines 45208 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB112
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V11 2
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JE7YGF<7M3TJZ<CX2SA
Sent: 160101/2055Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:36887 [Salto] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB112
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. New Year Greetings (K.CHANDRASEKHARAM)
2. Re: [isrohams] Re: [amsatindia] New Year Greetings
(V.MURALI KRISHNA)
3. Re: Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) (Wouter Weggelaar)
4. Re: [Bod] Happy New Year (Mark L. Hammond)
5. Re: [Bod] Happy New Year (Jean-Claude Aveni)
6. Re: Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) rebuttal
(Robert Bruninga)
7. Re: Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) rebuttal
(Burns Fisher)
8. Re: Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) rebuttal
(Wouter Weggelaar)
9. Re: Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!) rebuttal
(Robert Bruninga)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:06:52 +0530
From: "K.CHANDRASEKHARAM" <kchandru@xxxx.xxx.xx>
To: "'Mani [VU2WMY/KJ6LRS]' wmy@xxxx.xxx.xx [isrohams]"
<isrohams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx amsatindia@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx
vuhams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] New Year Greetings
Message-ID: <20160101093339.F185C8203@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
Dear Friends,
I wish you and your family members a very happy new year 2016.
with regards,
K.Chandrasekharam
Quoting "'Mani [VU2WMY/KJ6LRS]' wmy@xxxx.xxx.xx [isrohams]"
<isrohams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> ?
> ?
>
> Warm wishes and greetings to all and to their family members for a
> 'Very Happy New Year 2016'.
>
> 73 de
> ?
> Mani [VU2WMY/KJ6LRS]
> Secretary & Station-In-Charge
> Upagrah Amateur Radio Club VU2URC
> ISRO Satellite Centre
> HAL Airport Road, Bangalore-560 017.
> Phone:(Office)91-80-25082598/25082054/25082192
> Mobile:? 91-9880 341 456
> E-mail ID: wmy@xxxx.xxx.xx
> ? ? ? ? ? ?vu2wmy_mani@xxxxx.xxx
> ? ? ? ? ? ?isrohams@xxxxx.xxx
>
> ?
>
> -------------------------
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> -------------------------
>
> __._,_.___
> ?
>
> -------------------------
> Posted by: "Mani [VU2WMY/KJ6LRS]" <wmy@xxxx.xxx.xx>
> -------------------------
>
> ?
>
>
> Reply via web post[1] ? Reply to sender [2]
?
> Reply to group [3] ? Start a New Topic[4]
> ? Messages in this topic[5] (18)
>
> ONE WORLD ONE LANGUAGE - ISRO HAMS
> ----------------------------------
> To subscribe for this group, send an email to
> isrohams-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Visit Your Group[6]
>
>
> [7] ? Privacy[8] ? Unsubscribe[9] ? Terms of Use[10]
>
> ?
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/conversations/messages/1765;_ylc=
X3oDMTJxbDZqMzc0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQ
Rtc2dJZAMxNzY1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTYzNzY5MQ--?act=reply&messa
geNum=1765
[2] mailto:wmy@xxxx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[3] mailto:isrohams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[4]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDM
TJmMjh1a2U4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRzZWM
DZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NTE2Mzc2OTE-
[5]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/conversations/topics/351;_ylc=X3o
DMTM0ZWRtaHFsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRtc
2dJZAMxNzY1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTYzNzY5MQR0cGNJZAMzNTE-
[6]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMTZqMHFjBF9TAzk
3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwB
HN0aW1lAzE0NTE2Mzc2OTE-
[7]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbzZvOHNyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3
NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTYzNzY5MQ
--
[8] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
[9] mailto:isrohams-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[10] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:00:41 +0530
From: "V.MURALI KRISHNA" <vmk@xxxx.xxx.xx>
To: "Balaji VU3PZA kbala@xxxx.xxx.xx [isrohams]"
<isrohams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx "'Mani [VU2WMY/KJ6LRS]'
wmy@xxxx.xxx.xxx@xxxx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] [isrohams] Re: [amsatindia] New Year Greetings
Message-ID: <20160101093352.DBA3880BF@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
Dear All,
Thanks for the wishes.
I also Wish you all a very happy and prosperous new year.
With Warm Regards
V.Murali Krishna.
Quoting "Balaji VU3PZA kbala@xxxx.xxx.xx [isrohams]"
<isrohams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> ?
> ?
>
> OM!
> Wish you very happy and prosperous new year 2016.
> with regards
> Balaji (vu3pza)
> 73 de
> Balaji (VU3PZA)
> Managing Committee Member
> Upargrah Amateur Radio Club(VU2URC)
> ISRO Satellite Centre, HAL Airport Road
> Bangalore - 560 017, India.
> Phone:(O)91-80-2508 2404, (R)91-80-2522 0810
> ? ? ? (M)91-94807 05796 (6pm-8am)
> Fax:? ? ?91-80-2508 2406
> E-mail ID: vu3pza@xxxxx.xxxx kbala@xxxx.xxx.xx
>
> ?
>
> -------------------------
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> -------------------------
>
> __._,_.___
> ?
>
> -------------------------
> Posted by: Balaji VU3PZA <kbala@xxxx.xxx.xx>
> -------------------------
>
> ?
>
>
> Reply via web post[1] ? Reply to sender [2]
?
> Reply to group [3] ? Start a New Topic[4]
> ? Messages in this topic[5] (1)
>
> ONE WORLD ONE LANGUAGE - ISRO HAMS
> ----------------------------------
> To subscribe for this group, send an email to
> isrohams-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Visit Your Group[6]
>
>
> [7] ? Privacy[8] ? Unsubscribe[9] ? Terms of Use[10]
>
> ?
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/conversations/messages/1768;_ylc=
X3oDMTJxamw3aGpiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQ
Rtc2dJZAMxNzY4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTYzOTI0MQ--?act=reply&messa
geNum=1768
[2]
mailto:kbala@xxxx.xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx
[3]
mailto:isrohams@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
[4]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDM
TJmaGxqb25rBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRzZWM
DZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NTE2MzkyNDE-
[5]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/conversations/topics/1768;_ylc=X3
oDMTM1bzRuZmZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRt
c2dJZAMxNzY4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTYzOTI0MQR0cGNJZAMxNzY4
[6]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/isrohams/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmODI5bGtlBF9TAzk
3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwB
HN0aW1lAzE0NTE2MzkyNDE-
[7]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcGFkbWthBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3
NzgyNDU5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwODM5NjM3OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ1MTYzOTI0MQ
--
[8] https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
[9] mailto:isrohams-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[10] https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
V MURALI KRISHNA
SCI/ENGR-SE;PFF/IFF/MFF
ISRO SATELLITE CENTRE
HAL AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 017.
INDIA.
EMAIL: vmk@xxxx.xxx.xx
Phone:
? ? ? Office:? ? ? ? +91-80-25083023
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?+91-80-25083028
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 14:37:44 +0100
From: Wouter Weggelaar <wouterweg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Stephen Nelson <steve.motorola.uranium@xxxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat-bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Message-ID:
<CAKXf1rF=4AyFFUvfXKDGLYJROMgU-+08rixCskP1bog_MbzEiA@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Its indeed Yield, but also the fact that there is far less GaAs fabs around
the world, and even less with their process controls good enough to make
the required (almost defect free) wafers for triple junction GaAs cells of
a substantial size. This is also why you see smaller cells being used in
space (smaller wafer size) instead of the big size wafers in Si technology.
Also, who cares about process variation in Si as long as the total panel
assembly meets the spec.
In space, that 1% extra efficiency can make the difference on your power
budget. Hopefully including your margins ;)
Most terrestrial cells have lots of defects in them that are not a problem.
On a sidenote: even the premium space cells are not completely defect free,
but for high profile missions, usually hand selected batches are combined
into panels and the "scrap" cells can be re-used on other missions or
resold as grade B. This process can be done by either the cell manufacturer
or the panel assembler, depending on the mission.
Each cell is certified by the manufacturer for performances including
possible defects.
Interestingly, on the Triple junction GaAs cells I have been working with,
a defect will lead to that spot in the panel acting as a LED ;)
Wouter PA3WEG
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Nelson <
steve.motorola.uranium@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> I think it has to do with the starting material and test specifications....
> Si is cheap, and can tolerate most VLSI manufacturing processes. GaAs is
> very brittle and has a "bad attitude" during manufacturing to put it
> lightly.
>
> My guess, the extra cost comes from Process Yield, and strict Final Test
> requirements to meet the reliability specs.
>
> Stephen N.
> KD6VEX
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for your
> > house:
> >
> > http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
> >
> >
> >
> > The 10,000 Watt array for your house costs less than a 10 W array for a
> > cubesat satellite.
> >
> >
> >
> > I get tired of the excuse, ?Im waiting for higher efficiency cells? when
> > the cost of just doubling the efficiency from 15% to 30% is a factor of
> > 1000 times more expensive. You?ll be dead before the expensive ones even
> > come down by half (much less the 1000 to 1 needed to make them
> practical).
> >
> >
> >
> > And in fact it will never ever happen. Because a satellite builder will
> > pay a measly $10,000 to DOUBLE the power of his 4 inch satellite and so
> the
> > market for the highest efficiency cells will always get a premium price
> > because the satellite buyers will always pay max dollars for max power
> > independent of cost.
> >
> >
> >
> > And there will never be a decaying cost or learning curve, because as
> soon
> > as someone comes up with a 32% solar cell, then the 30% technology is
> > ABANDONED because the space industry will all move to the 32% cells and
> be
> > happy to pay even more for the higher power and there is practically no
> > market for last year?s 30% cells that cost 1000 times more than existing
> > silicon cells at 15%. And without a growing market for last year?s HIGH
> > efficiency cells, there will never be a learning curve and declining
> cost.
> >
> >
> >
> > Meanwhile the cheap 15% cells being mass produced for the terrestrial
> solar
> > market in a MILLION times the volume at 1/1000 the cost already cost less
> > than a window of the same size! Witness the cost reduction of 10 to 1 in
> > the last 10 years and the 2 to 1 reduction in the last 3 years with
> > improvements from 15% efficiency up to around 18% not by changing the
> > technology of the 60 year old simple silicon, but just optimizing the
> > manufacturing process (by the billions)?
> >
> >
> >
> > Solar is here, Now. And it won?t get any cheaper, because as the market
> > expands exponentially the demand for bazillions of watts of solar will
> soak
> > up every panel produced and homeowners are then competing with massive
> > utility scale purchases of millions of panels. Solar panels now cost
> less
> > than just a window of the same size. It is no longer the cost of the
> > panels, it is simply the cost of labor that drives the majority of cost
> > now. You can buy solar panels for under $0.70 a watt but to have a
> > contractor installed system is hovering around $3.50 per watt and not
> going
> > down much at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lastly, if you have sun, you KNOW eventually you will be going solar. So
> > once you realize that, you should also realize that every electric bill
> you
> > pay from now on is just throwing money away which would have been better
> > invested in free electricity and 10% annual return for life on your roof
> or
> > in your yard.
> >
> >
> >
> > Waiting gains nothing. Even the solar panels I bought 4 years ago at
> twice
> > the price have already paid for themselves. Waiting would have gained
> > nothing except 4 years of more wasted money to the utility and so many
> tons
> > of burned coal wasted into the air. Here are some more thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://aprs.org/solar-now.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Summary, Solar and Satellites? the same but 1000 times cheaper on Earth.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob, Wb4APR
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> > to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
> Opinions
> > expressed
> > are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> > AMSAT-NA.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> > Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen Nelson
> ???????
> ??????????
> KD6VEX
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:47:13 -0500
From: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Robert McGwier <rwmcgwier@xxxxx.xxx>,amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] [Bod] Happy New Year
Message-ID: <0fnD1s0085LoKnP01fnDgU@xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Happy New Year, Dr. Bob! Glad to have you back in the fold. Yes, 2017
stands to be a wonderful year!
73,
Mark N8MH
At 07:30 AM 1/1/2016 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote:
>I think 2016 will be a great year for AMSAT ? organizations around the
world and for AMSAT-NA, it will be a major turn around year with multiple
spacecraft to be launched and multiple I preparation or under consideration.
>
>I'm very happy to be active again with my AMSAT friends and around the
world.? The slow evaporation of the damage done by ITAR is readily apparent
I our various circles doing technical work.
>
>It is exciting.
>
>HNY and 73s
>Bob
>N4HY
>
>
>
>--
>Bob McGwier
>Founder, Federated Wireless, Inc
>Founder and Technical Advisor, HawkEye 360, Inc
>Research Professor Virginia Tech
>Dir. Research: ? The Ted and Karyn Hume Center for National Security and
Technology
>Senior Member IEEE,? Facebook: N4HYBob,? ARS: N4HY
>Faculty Advisor Virginia Tech Amateur Radio Assn. (K4KDJ)
>Director of AMSAT
>
>_______________________________________________
>Via the BOD mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/bod
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:11:50 +0100
From: Jean-Claude Aveni <jean-claude.aveni@xxxxxxx.xx>
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] [Bod] Happy New Year
Message-ID: <5686A546.1030906@xxxxxxx.xx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Happy New Year OM ; from Corsica island, TK5GH Jean-Claude. 73 QRO
Le 01/01/2016 16:47, Mark L. Hammond a ?crit :
> Happy New Year, Dr. Bob! Glad to have you back in the fold. Yes, 2017
stands to be a wonderful year!
>
> 73,
>
> Mark N8MH
>
> At 07:30 AM 1/1/2016 -0500, Robert McGwier wrote:
>> I think 2016 will be a great year for AMSAT ? organizations around the
world and for AMSAT-NA, it will be a major turn around year with multiple
spacecraft to be launched and multiple I preparation or under consideration.
>>
>> I'm very happy to be active again with my AMSAT friends and around the
world.? The slow evaporation of the damage done by ITAR is readily apparent
I our various circles doing technical work.
>>
>> It is exciting.
>>
>> HNY and 73s
>> Bob
>> N4HY
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bob McGwier
>> Founder, Federated Wireless, Inc
>> Founder and Technical Advisor, HawkEye 360, Inc
>> Research Professor Virginia Tech
>> Dir. Research: ? The Ted and Karyn Hume Center for National Security and
Technology
>> Senior Member IEEE,? Facebook: N4HYBob,? ARS: N4HY
>> Faculty Advisor Virginia Tech Amateur Radio Assn. (K4KDJ)
>> Director of AMSAT
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Via the BOD mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>> http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/bod
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
--
Jean-Claude Aveni
site web : http://astro-notes.org
Blog : http://astro-notes.over-blog.fr
HAM : TK5GH (indicatif radio amateur)
Courriel : jean-claude.aveni@xxxxxxx.xx
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:21:27 -0500
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
rebuttal
Message-ID:
<CALdCfN+VoyE4wr-6wKBk5tqMEVYA1RDfNB9487POgGp3vxh-Mw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
midnight.
No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the
beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress
actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
> Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to screw
up.
Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
> 42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)...
> Remember statics and dynamics??
> ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game.
> In Florida in summer? Fatal.
50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot
and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design
figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is considered
0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster than
a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
> Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh.
> Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
> HF RFI? Undetectable.
Thanks, that is great news!
> I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock.
> SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other
three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I had
to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to
inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it
into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX, there
were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and
SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob <WB4SON@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> > Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that about
> 20
> > gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total
> > installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven by
> > residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually down
> > 5%.
> >
> > One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of
> > production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were not
> > keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going out
> of
> > business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting Elon
> > Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will
> > produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are
> > expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in
> > efficiency.
> >
> > Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches the
> > mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar
> > industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily mean
> > that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those panels
> > may simply sell for 50% more.
> >
> > 73, Bob, WB4SON
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
> >
> >> Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation and
> >> they improve.
> >> nick
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM
> >> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
> >>
> >> Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
> your
> >> house:
> >>
> >> http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
> >>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:36:27 -0500
From: Burns Fisher <burns@xxxxxx.xx>
To: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
Cc: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
rebuttal
Message-ID:
<CABX7KxUrx5Xawn_E=ttDCFBpbJc6dNXUp0AnQSK56waWM9tVpQ@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I guess there are a lot of folks interested in this even though it is only
peripherally related to satellites...I hope there are not too many
objections.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has heard this rumor: After a certain number
of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do net
metering. I don't know whether a) they would just not allow any more new
installations with backfeed at all or b) for new installations they would
only pay wholesale, or c) somehow they average retail and wholesale prices
for everyone who is backfeeding.
I can surely understand why a power company would WANT to do that. They
are usually getting power that they have to pay extra for at a time when
they need it less. But it certainly reduces some of the financial
incentive to install, if true. Anyone know more? It would probably differ
by state...
73,
Burns W2BFJ
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> > If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
> midnight.
>
> No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the
> beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress
> actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
>
> > Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to screw
> up.
>
> Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
>
> > 42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)...
> > Remember statics and dynamics??
> > ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game.
> > In Florida in summer? Fatal.
>
> 50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot
> and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design
> figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is considered
> 0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster than
> a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
>
> > Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh.
> > Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
>
> Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
>
> > HF RFI? Undetectable.
>
> Thanks, that is great news!
>
> > I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock.
> > SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
>
> I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other
> three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I had
> to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to
> inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it
> into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX, there
> were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
>
> But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and
> SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob <WB4SON@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > > Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that about
> > 20
> > > gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total
> > > installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven
> by
> > > residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
> down
> > > 5%.
> > >
> > > One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of
> > > production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were not
> > > keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going out
> > of
> > > business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
> Elon
> > > Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will
> > > produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are
> > > expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in
> > > efficiency.
> > >
> > > Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
> the
> > > mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar
> > > industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
> mean
> > > that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
> panels
> > > may simply sell for 50% more.
> > >
> > > 73, Bob, WB4SON
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
> > >
> > >> Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
> and
> > >> they improve.
> > >> nick
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM
> > >> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> > >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
> > >>
> > >> Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
> > your
> > >> house:
> > >>
> > >> http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
> > >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:27:28 +0100
From: Wouter Weggelaar <wouterweg@xxxxx.xxx>
To: Burns Fisher <burns@xxxxxx.xx>
Cc: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
rebuttal
Message-ID:
<CAKXf1rH0ZvODWjyOThptffivP7qrfjGaAo0ZyF25RQJzETWCvw@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Burns,
I can not possibly comment on the US electrical systems and laws & policies
around them, but from a technical point of view there is a huge reason to
hold off on all these extra feed-ins. And that simple reason is grid
stability.
So regardless of any tariff schemes and/or the power companies trying to
keep their market, there is a substantial technical hurdle. I don't know
how it is in the US, but I did some research during an internship on this
in The Netherlands, and as a result, some kinds of inverters were outlawed
in the EU because they were really dangerous to the grid stability, and
also not safe in the end when instabilities did occur.
(and not all of those were made in china....)
Are they discouraging a growth beyond a certain size just to prevent this
issue?
Maybe this is substantially different in the US, since the grid looks
completely different.
Wouter PA3WEG
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Burns Fisher <burns@xxxxxx.xx> wrote:
> I guess there are a lot of folks interested in this even though it is only
> peripherally related to satellites...I hope there are not too many
> objections.
>
> But I wanted to ask if anyone has heard this rumor: After a certain number
> of solar connections, power companies will no longer be required to do net
> metering. I don't know whether a) they would just not allow any more new
> installations with backfeed at all or b) for new installations they would
> only pay wholesale, or c) somehow they average retail and wholesale prices
> for everyone who is backfeeding.
>
> I can surely understand why a power company would WANT to do that. They
> are usually getting power that they have to pay extra for at a time when
> they need it less. But it certainly reduces some of the financial
> incentive to install, if true. Anyone know more? It would probably differ
> by state...
>
> 73,
>
> Burns W2BFJ
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
> wrote:
>
> > > If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
> > midnight.
> >
> > No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the
> > beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress
> > actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
> >
> > > Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to
> screw
> > up.
> >
> > Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
> >
> > > 42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)...
> > > Remember statics and dynamics??
> > > ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game.
> > > In Florida in summer? Fatal.
> >
> > 50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot
> > and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design
> > figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is
> considered
> > 0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster
> than
> > a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
> >
> > > Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh.
> > > Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
> >
> > Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
> >
> > > HF RFI? Undetectable.
> >
> > Thanks, that is great news!
> >
> > > I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock.
> > > SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
> >
> > I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other
> > three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I
> had
> > to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to
> > inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift
> it
> > into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX,
> there
> > were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
> >
> > But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and
> > SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob <WB4SON@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
> about
> > > 20
> > > > gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total
> > > > installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven
> > by
> > > > residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
> > down
> > > > 5%.
> > > >
> > > > One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of
> > > > production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were
> not
> > > > keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going
> out
> > > of
> > > > business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
> > Elon
> > > > Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will
> > > > produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are
> > > > expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in
> > > > efficiency.
> > > >
> > > > Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
> > the
> > > > mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar
> > > > industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
> > mean
> > > > that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
> > panels
> > > > may simply sell for 50% more.
> > > >
> > > > 73, Bob, WB4SON
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
> > and
> > > >> they improve.
> > > >> nick
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM
> > > >> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> > > >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
> > > >>
> > > >> Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
> > > your
> > > >> house:
> > > >>
> > > >> http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
> > > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> > to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
> Opinions
> > expressed
> > are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> > AMSAT-NA.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> program!
> > Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> expressed
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:53:54 -0500
From: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
To: amsat bb <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
rebuttal
Message-ID:
<CALdCfNK1_vGu7nCfrVo5NmACCDKf+rXVw17rhwn7YeK8e4p_2w@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> After a certain number of solar connections, power companies
> will no longer be required to do net metering. ..
> They are usually getting [solar] power that they have
> to pay extra for at a time when they need it less.
Not true at all except on talk radio and fossil fuel funded stink tanks.
The price of electricity varies minute-by-minute over a factor of
ten-to-one during each day based on the minute by minute supply and
demand. Consumers pay a "fixed" rate that is 10% over the average cost to
assure the utilities make their PSC guaranteed profits. But the truth is
that when the utility is paying me solar net-meter rates (1-to-1 at that
average consumer rate) the utility is actually getting a GREAT deal because
otherwise on sunny summer days when they are having to buy very dirty high
cost peaking electricity at ten to 20 times the standard rate to avoid a
brownout, they are still gettting my solar at only the 1-to-1 fixed rate.
That distributed solar power that the utility gets for 1-to-1 when they
need it *most* is more than enough to pay the small distribution cost my
solar system is avoiding.
So don't be fooled by the very deep pocket disinformation from the fossil
fueled stink tanks.
> They are usually getting [solar] power that they have
> to pay extra for at a time when they need it less.
The opposite is true. Solar peaks at the same time that Air conditioning
load peaks and we ll know that such brownouts are always in the summer. So
they are actually always getting cheap solar-net-metered power when the DO
need it most.
Problem is the narrow-minded foolish politicians in many backward states
believe this propaganda from the fossil fuel industry hook, line and sinker
and are eating away at the benefits of net metering just to maintain the
status quo and their monopoly on the grid.
And if you still don't believe it, just witness our local BG&E. When you
get a regular smart meter, they automatically will PAY EVERY consumer on
their system TEN TIMES the normal rate for every kWh they do NOT use during
these peak summer days! Normally our rate is 14 cents per kwH. But during
peak summer loads, they will pay $1.50 per kWh that you do NOT use. There
is the proof as to how much electricity really costs when it is needed
most... yet they get my solar (net metered) for just the same 14 cents and
are very definitely enjoying it.
How do they know what you are NOT using? SImple, the smart meter knows
your average load on such days and hence, if you dont use that much on any
given brownout day you get this TEN-to-ONE premium credit. A good time to
go to the beach.... Typically people who turn things off or go to the
beach get a $10 to $20 credit for each such day.
So don't believe everything you hear from talk radio and the stink tanks...
Bob, WB4APR
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Robert Bruninga <bruninga@xxxx.xxx>
> wrote:
>
>> > If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after
>> midnight.
>>
>> No. The 30% federal tax incentive was to end by the end of 2016, not the
>> beginning. AND does'nt matter anyway, since the do-nothing congress
>> actually included an extenaion in the spending bill.
>>
>> > Putting solar on an asphalt roof ... is a bad idea. Not a place to
>> screw
>> up.
>>
>> Use a reputable contractor with guarantee. They know how to do it right.
>>
>> > 42 panels 50 lbs per (for 11 kW system)...
>> > Remember statics and dynamics??
>> > ... bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game.
>> > In Florida in summer? Fatal.
>>
>> 50 lbs per panel over 18 sqft is only a load of 2.8 lbs per square foot
>> and is insignificant compared to the required building code roof design
>> figure of typically 30 psf. (Though in Florida the snow load is
>> considered
>> 0). The good news elsewhere is that solar panels melt snow far faster
>> than
>> a normal roof, so there is no multiday buildup and icing load...
>>
>> > Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh.
>> > Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
>>
>> Congratulations, sounds like you did it anyway...
>>
>> > HF RFI? Undetectable.
>>
>> Thanks, that is great news!
>>
>> > I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock.
>> > SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
>>
>> I was totally shocked when I ordered an SMA inverter to add to my other
>> three XANTREX ones which only weighted 25 lbs. The SMA was so heavy I had
>> to invite my son to dinner just to get help getting it from the porch to
>> inside the house! Then had to feed him again a week later to help lift it
>> into place. I think it is over 100 lbs? And compared to the XANTREX,
>> there
>> were may nitpicks I did not like about the SMA at all.
>>
>> But then of course, XANTREX doesn't make grid-tie inverters any more and
>> SMA does seem to have very good reviews.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob <WB4SON@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> > > Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that
>> about
>> > 20
>> > > gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total
>> > > installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven
>> by
>> > > residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually
>> down
>> > > 5%.
>> > >
>> > > One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of
>> > > production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were
>> not
>> > > keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going
>> out
>> > of
>> > > business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting
>> Elon
>> > > Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will
>> > > produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are
>> > > expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in
>> > > efficiency.
>> > >
>> > > Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches
>> the
>> > > mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar
>> > > industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily
>> mean
>> > > that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those
>> panels
>> > > may simply sell for 50% more.
>> > >
>> > > 73, Bob, WB4SON
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation
>> and
>> > >> they improve.
>> > >> nick
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: AMSAT-BB [On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM
>> > >> To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
>> > >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
>> > >>
>> > >> Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for
>> > your
>> > >> house:
>> > >>
>> > >> http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
>> > >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
>> Opinions expressed
>> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
>> AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx.
AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide
without requiring membership. Opinions expressed
are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
